House Republicans are accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of giving “deceptive and misleading testimony” to lawmakers when answering their questions about the Justice Department’s criminal probes of journalists, including Fox News’ James Rosen.

According to a report released Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee, Holder attempted to “circumvent proper congressional oversight and accountability by distorting the truth about the Justice Department’s investigative techniques targeting journalists.”

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Holder, now in his fifth year as attorney general, is failing at his job of running DOJ.

“I find the lack of leadership at the Department of Justice extremely alarming,” Goodlatte said in a statement. “The deceptive and misleading testimony of Attorney General Holder is unfortunately just the most recent example in a long list of scandals that have plagued the Department.

But Democrats on the Judiciary panel - not surprisingly - defended Holder and said he didn’t lie to committee members during his May 15 appearance. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) released a report by Democratic staffers clearing Holder of any wrondoing.

“After months of oversight work, the Minority staff report makes clear that Attorney General Eric Holder did not provide deceptive or misleading testimony to the Judiciary Committee, and cooperated fully with the investigation into his appearance before the Committee,” Conyers said in a statement.

DOJ officials also dismissed the new report as just another partisan attack on Holder by House Republicans, many of whom have already called on the attorney general to resign over the Fast and Furious scandal.

“The report was produced on a purely partisan basis,” said Brian Fallon, DOJ’s spokesman. “Its purported findings are contrary to the record and strongly disputed by many of the committee’s own members.”

The 70-page GOP report, titled “Journalists or Criminals,” lays out the details surrounding a 2010 DOJ probe into Rosen, Fox’ News’ chief Washington correspondent. Rosen had reported the previous year on CIA warnings that North Korea was likely to respond to U.N. sanctions with more nuclear tests. This was based on a secret intelligence report issued to fewer than 100 government officials.

DOJ officials obtained a search warrant to go through Rosen’s telephone records and emails. FBI agents even tracked his movements inside the State Department when he scanned his ID badge into building’s security system. In court documents, an FBI agent suggested Rosen “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” in violating federal laws prohibiting the leaking of classified information. And disclosure of the subpoena for such evidence was not to be revealed to Rosen or Fox News.

The controversy over DOJ’s heavy-handed tactics in the Rosen probe came after it was revealed that DOJ had subpoenaed phone records for Associated Press reporters, including phone lines for reporters working in the Capitol, over another intelligence leak.

When Holder was asked during the May 15 hearing of the Judiciary Committee about the possibility of criminal charges being filed against journalists under the Espionage Act, the attorney general said he was not aware that any such move was even being considered by DOJ officials.

“With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy,” Holder said in response to a question from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). Holder was not asked directly about the Rosen case.

According to Republicans, the attorney’s general’s statement left them with little doubt that “not only had the potential prosecution of a reporter never been contemplated during Mr. Holder’s tenure, but that nothing comparable to the Rosen search warrant had ever been executed by this administration.”

Under DOJ rules, the attorney general must approve any submittal to a grand jury for a subpoena for testimony or records from a reporter or news organization.

Republicans also believe that Justice officials had weighed, at the very least, filing criminal charges against Rosen.

“It is difficult to square Mr. Holder’s testimony that there was never a potential prosecution of Mr. Rosen with the affidavit seeking evidence against him,” the GOP lawmakers asserted.

Republicans also believe that the Justice Department “inappropriately interpreted” the Privacy Protection Act to help it obtain Rosen’s e-mails. That 1980 law protects journalists from having to turn over their work product to law enforcement before its published. In a June 19 letter, Holder told Judiciary Republicans that, under PPA, “the government was required to establish that there was probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or was committing a criminal offense to which the needed materials related” to the Rosen investigation.

”The PPA exists to protect reporters from certain ‘investigative steps,’ such as those the Justice Department took here, that are intended to bring charges against a third party,” the Republicans wrote. “Such a twisted reading of [PPA] … would create an open door to search the work product of any journalist in any case, even if there is no good faith intent that the government would ever prosecute that reporter.”

Democratic staffers on the Judiciary Committee, however, concluded that Holder was factually accurate in his response to Johnson’s question.

”The Attorney General was not answering a question about Fox News reporter James Rosen, or about the Department’s use of the warrant authority under the Privacy Protection Act to obtain materials from journalists,” the Democratic staffers wrote. “Instead, Attorney General Holder was providing a general response to Representative Johnson’s concern that the law allows for prosecution of journalists.”

The Democratic aides also noted that in his June 19 letter to the committee, Holder stated that “it remains my understanding that the Department has never prosecuted a journalist for publishing classified information.”

In addition, DOJ officials noted that Holder has revised the department’s regulations for leak investigations involving reporters even before the Judiciary Committee report was issued.

“The department has already revised its guidelines for investigating media leaks to strengthen protections for reporters. Providing additional safeguards for journalists will require action by Congress,” said a DOJ official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “If the report’s authors genuinely wish to further protect journalists, they should work to pass the bipartisan media shield legislation that the Department has already endorsed.”